ESA seeks $1.1 million in legal fees from fighting CA videogame law

California's attempt to enact an unconstitutional law restricting the sale of …

The Supreme Court gave video games protection under the First Amendment in its ruling against California's gaming legislation, setting a precedent that should deter other politicians from trying to pass similar laws. The Entertainment Software Association isn't finished, however, and it has filed a motion to be reimbursed $1.1 million in attorney's fees from the state of California.

This isn't the first time the ESA has gone after reimbursement for its legal costs after having one of these laws declared unconstitutional: Louisiana, Michigan, and Illinois have all had to pay up after failing to pass their own laws regulating the sale of video games.

"We look forward to moving forward and working together to raise awareness about the valuable tools and information available to parents," said Michael D. Gallagher, CEO of the ESA, the trade association representing US computer and video game publishers. "From the start of this misguided legislation, then-Governor Schwarzenegger and specific California legislators knew that their efforts to censor and restrict expression were, as court after court ruled, unconstitutional and thus a waste of taxpayers’ money, government time, and state resources."

This is bad news for California's stretched budget and should enrage taxpayers who have to foot the bill. There is a long history of these bills failing on constitutional grounds, leaving state governments stuck with the bill. The legislators who pushed the bill through had to be aware of this history when they took the fight all the way to the Supreme Court.

"It's unfortunate that some officials continue to believe that unconstitutional laws are the answer, when time and time again courts have thrown out these bills and proven them to be a waste of taxpayers' dollars," the ESA said in a statement... four years ago. Hopefully California's government will listen after this expensive lesson in constitutional law.